![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
We can only really say for sure that he didn’t write about it in his book. But have we checked everything he ever wrote?
We can only really say for sure that he didn’t write about it in his book. But have we checked everything he ever wrote?
That standard is fine. Leave the rest out and do things you like in social settings and bip bop boop, you’ve found somebody who’d rather be with you than at a club, even if all you do is watch anime, or she sits on the couch and watches you play video games. Be open to your ideal looking different from what you expected.
Anime and video games to the exclusion of everything else? Are those the only two options? What about reading and movies? Or knitting and podcasts?
If all you do is look for reasons not to date somebody, then that is all you’re going to see.
You asked, I answered. Do you want to know what people think about your standards or not? I agree with your friends. I’m not equipped to help you demystify your feelings towards women, but I think a good place to start is by examining why these things are such deal breakers to you. Is the presence of these qualities the only things you find attractive, regardless of any other factors? Because that’s not how people typically view attractiveness.
Yes. It sounds like you’re talking about the features you’re on the lookout for in a used car, which comes off as creepy.
I didn’t even know it was a story until I read about the retraction. Like, “What do you mean they retracted their story saying he didn’t tuck a couch…? Does that mean…?”
Regardless of who the president is, regardless of their time in politics, or their influence on foreign policy, the United States of America has shown again and again that it supports Israel in everything that it does. 40 years ago Joe Biden took a 40 year old idea and ran with it.
Making you that much more attractive! It’s a vicious cycle!
I think the term is used here to indicate that Israel is a core part of America’s foreign policy, and regardless of who the president is, they have to deal with that legacy.
Why wouldn’t this have bipartisan support other than the sobbingly obvious ways that it prevents consolidation of power?
It’s not that they’re conservative, it’s that they’re making dumb fucking decisions.
I thought the intent was to keep the number at 9 while still having elections every 2 years. Doesn’t that come out to 18?
Fair point, it’s not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.
As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it’s completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It’s just too broad for anything other than a “I’m sure people will just be cool” acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.
(Edited to add what I’m told is called a “para-graph”)
Somehow the writers of that Wikipedia article managed to fit that information into the first sentence.
Doesn’t removing criminal liability basically make it legal?
Nothing so pedestrian as that! That suggests indiscriminate fire, so I prefer “accuracy by volume.”
Not recently, tell her to call me
Lmao, what context did they provide for the dolphin porn search? I mean, I know why I do it, I just wondered what reason they gave.